The Myth of Authenticity Is Killing Tex-Mex
eater.com
eater.com
The search for authenticity in food is a weird obsession anyway since cuisine changes on contact with new ingredients.
Things like tomato sauce and pasta in italian cuisine wasn't until almost 1800. Yet we talk about 'authentic' cuisine we usually use it in context way before 'America'. Yet most cuisine we eat didn't come into existence until AFTER America.
Another example is chilis in thai cuisine. Capsicum didn't make it over the ocean until america was discovered. So all the spicy peppers in so many dishes from Thai to Vietnamese food didn't exist in their cooking until it was brought over and eventually incorporated.
Potatoes is another one. Originated in Peru. Russian potato vodka? Irish Potatoes? Germans bangers and mash?
Nope, nada until America was discovered.
Chocolate, Vanilla. Staples of desserts of european cooking...except not until America was discovered.
These above ingredients alone are associated with so many traditional recipes but they didn't exist until recently. It really shows how quickly food and traditions change and the idea of 'authenticity' is over blown.
> Yet we talk about 'authentic' cuisine we usually use it in context way before 'America'.
I can pretty much guarantee that's not true of discussion of authentic cuisine of the Mexican or Tex-Mex varieties, since “Mexico” and “Texas” are both post-Millenial identities, and both identities of the Americas. Sure, it might apply to some views of authenticity of European, Asian, or African cuisines (and if by “America” you actually mean the “European colonization of America”, which some parts of your comment suggest, it might apply to similar views of authenticity of Native American, including Inuit, Aztec, Inca, etc. cuisine.
But, even where it might apply, I don't think that is what people usually mean by authenticity; they mostly mean before changes made to support mass commercial distribution or production, and without adaptation to ingredients they are locally cheaper or more popular in places outside of the place where the cuisine originates. (In America, that concern might often be phrased as “before Americanization”, but that's not “before any impacts of the discovery of America”.)
I have gone to many local restaurants where local ingredients are used and not mass-produced and seen the same attitude from friends, colleague or acquaintances in my life.
I also extensively worked in the kitchen, in fact it was my first career, and i can say the attitude was prevlevant there too.
I've worked with plenty of people from mexico itself that had less of that attitude since they could actually see the influence of different dishes and spices in both foods.
So I can pretty much guarantee from actual experience this attitude stems from the same attitude that other people have that leads them to say things like 'italy doesn't have pepperoni pizza' or 'french wine will always be better than nappa' etc. It stems from the same place.
I will concede there are probably people like you describe, but the issue the article describes and the issue I am talking about is seen quite a bit against 'tex-mex'.
I would posit that mostly, what these people mean is that “French wine will always be more French than Napa.” And they have an aesthetic preference for the terroir of French wine.
To put that another way: a lot of culinary aesthetics—and aesthetics generally—is just a rationalization of nostalgia. People want food that tastes like food they remember enjoying (even if that memory has more to do with their mood at the time, or the ambiance, or any other thing that can colour a memory), rather than particularly caring about food being good in the same way as food they remember enjoying. People would prefer a food that recaptures their youth, to a food that’s an optimized, culinarily “better” version of that food, every time. (Unless they’re chefs, or professional food critics.)
I never said that people in general have a different attitude about authenticity toward Tex-Mex food than most other food, I said that it is impossible for the source of that attitude to be a desire to get to what the cuisine was like before the discovery of America.
I didn't gather that from your reply. I apologise for misunderstanding.
I agree with that point. But I also don't think people are 'wanting' what it was like before in either attitude.
I think it something else, maybe a way to seem more 'culture' or a way to seperate themselves from common 'americans'? I mean i don't really know where it stems from.
Example is we have quite a few people that complains how all these 'chemicals' and stuff in our food is killing us and how they only buy organic and they won't eat this or that cause of the 'processing' and then they light a cigarette and crack open a can of PBR.
A lot of times we identify with something on a different level then is logical, I believe the same is happening with a lot of these people and 'authenticity'. I could be wrong though, but I believe we are all susceptible to this kind of behavior.
I'm reading The Elephant in the Brain. Its shocking how much we do as humans that we delude ourselves into believing.
Not that germans don't eat plenty of potatoes and sausage, but "bangers and mash" is a British thing.
"Authentic" viking bread would have been made with hand-milled oat and rye, with some wheat; to date you can see much more oat and rye harvest in most parts of Scandinavia; but just as you point out, potatoes are today also seen as an essential part of an "authentic" Norwegian diet and is a part of most dishes considered traditionally Norwegian.
Even more amusing to me is that while porridge is authentic in that respect, the most common modern types are not: rice porridge is certainly quite modern, yet it's pretty much considered as authentically Norwegian as you can get to have rice porridge served with butter, sugar and cinnamon, with both sugar and cinnamon being "modern" introductions.
And it was first a few years ago I learned that most of the Christmas cookie traditions we have are less than a century old, with ironic ones like "fattigmann" (literally "poor man") being introduced in the 1930's in a cook book where the recipe including more eggs than the average 1930's family consumed in a year, and so not actually spreading until much later.
Christmas traditions in particular, now that I have a kid of my own, has driven how that "authentic" and "tradition" usually really for the most part stays consistent only a generation or two. What my son is growing up with certainly has some parts in common with the Christmas celebrations of my childhood, but it has already morphed drastically, both in terms of traditions and even the food we insist is very authentic.
Tomatoes and potatoes, and the vanilla bean, were cultivated in Europe, by Europeans.
Chilies were cultivated in the Americas (over 6000 years ago), and then traded to European explorers who took them back home and grew them there, too.
The cocoa bean was cultivated in the Americas, by the Olmec; and then traded to European explorers who tried to grow it, failed, and ended up invading the area to farm it.
Of these, the first is European cuisine, through-and-through. The second is aboriginal Mesoamerican cuisine. And the third is what you might call “American” cuisine, insofar as—like most of the historical cuisines in America itself—it was a cuisine invented by farmers from Europe (and the slaves they brought from everywhere else) learning to live in the Americas.
Example: Dutch speculaas cookies [1].
"Speculaas dough does not rise much. Dutch and Belgian versions are baked with light brown (sometimes beet) sugar and baking powder. German Spekulatius uses baker's ammonia as leavening agent. Indian, Indonesian, and Mediterranean spices used in speculaas are cinnamon, nutmeg, cloves, ginger, cardamom and white pepper; these were common in the 1600-1700s due to the Dutch East Indies spice trade. Family recipes may also include other small amounts of spices like anise, etc." [emphasis mine]
I don't know what's been more important for which cuisine, but not mentioning say VOC's imports and only WIC (which was smaller and came a good ~20 years later) is inaccurate. The WIC was more into slave trade, especially after conquering of Angola and Brasil from the Portuguese.
An amusing side note: I read about an analysis showing that Stradivarius used a red pigment from America in some of his violins. I doubt it had an effect on the tone, but it's just interesting to see what kind of trade was occurring.
Lots of bread.
Seriously loads of the stuff, along with other grains and grain products (oats, barley, porridge, beer).
We also ate other root vegetables native to Eurasia such as carrots, parsnips, swedes and turnips; and plenty of beans and legumes.
Obviously there was no going back once we figured out how to roast a potato though.
It isn't wrong to describe Europeans discovering America as long as you aren't claiming they were the first to discover it.
It's a shame, because these people seem to be unaware of how large a country Mexico is, with myriad cultural influences and traditions, regional variations, and a vibrant modern food culture, especially in regards to Mexico City.
The taco truck under the BART tracks in Oakland with the $6 heart-attack (and heart-burn) burritos doesn't serve traditional/authentic Mexican food, it serves traditional Cali/NorCal Taco Truck food. If you love it, that's great, but honor it by celebrating what it really is, which is a separate food tradition that is wonderful in it's own way.
Like Chico's Tacos!
> It's a shame, because these people seem to be unaware of how large a country Mexico is, with myriad cultural influences and traditions, regional variations, and a vibrant modern food culture, especially in regards to Mexico City.
Fact! I prefer the style of cuisine that comes from the Chihuahuan desert.
Theory is that Tempura is just corruption of word "Tempero"
They reportedly got it from the British Navy, and it has evolved into something distinctively Japanese. The British of course brought it from India.
Japanese curry is sweeter, and has cocoa in it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry
According to that Wikipedia article, the word originates from Tamil, and:
"Archaeological evidence dating to 2600 BCE from Mohenjo-daro suggests the use of mortar and pestle to pound spices including mustard, fennel, cumin, and tamarind pods with which they flavoured food."
My daughter remarked that you can apparently put any random vegetables in Japanese curry and it still tastes awesome.
Because of the warm spices, my first taste of it actually gave me a nostalgic memory of my long gone grandfather who liked to cook "old world" German food. Germany was also influenced by the spice roads and incorporated a lot of these same spices into its cuisine.
It's one thing to object to food being sold as a certain style when that style would never include some of the ingredients that are being included, but it's well more important to just make delicious food.
Pretty sure it applies neither for French or Italian cuisine.
You mean the food quality at Walmart is superior to the the quality of the food you can find in a french organic market? the quality of milks? cheeses? wheat and meats is automatically superior in US? I know Jacque Pepin. I also know the food you can find in US markets is disgusting and low quality when compared to foods for the same price in France. There is a reason why US has an obesity crisis as sever as it is.
Growing up Italian-American, with relatives who came off the boat cooking things for me, then having a 'merican who did a semester abroad in a single city in Italy tell me the way I cook isn't "authentic."
Like, what? I'd understand the complaint if we'd gone to a place advertised as texmex.
I guess the annoying thing is they misleadingly refer to texmex food as "mexican" which it is not. It is a separate (and also tasty) cuisine that relies on different traditions and ingredients, eg flour instead of corn tortillas. Food is all great, but lets not use confusing terms
I strongly disagree; it can be pretty useful in certain contexts. Namely, on contact with US/Western market demand, a lot of cuisines get blander, sweeter, less complex, and sometimes heavier. (The history behind this is pretty interesting, and if you'd like i can pull up a source on this). For those whose palate is used to more flavor and complexity than the Western palate, the difference between the Americanized form of a cuisine and the "authentic" version can be pretty substantial. The latter can be preferred for either reasons of taste or reasons of variety (the difference between American Chinese and American Thai is far tinier than the difference between a given regional Chinese cuisine and a given regional Thai cuisine). Note that this is probably the case in every country: I was born and raised in the US, and I remember finding McDonald's to be pretty bizarre when I'd visit India, because the flavors had been modified to fit the local palate so heavily (this was about 20yrs ago; I gather that the menu has changed a lot since).
This isn't a search for authenticity per se, which as you say, is pretty much meaningless. It's just an attempt to avoid the flattening of every cuisine into a similar spectrum of flavors. Unfortunately, restaurants only exist if there's enough demand for them, so food with flavors outside of the country's palate are hard to sustain unless there's an ethnic enclave nearby that can support an "authentic" place.
As an aside, the "more flavor and complexity than the western palate" stuff is another of those things I have a bit of a problem with. Yeah, American food in some (most) parts of the country is bland but Mexican food (for example) is American, at least if California, Texas, New Mexico are still part of the country. Add BBQ, Cajun, and other regional cuisines and American food has its own complexity. Standard diner fare is pretty bleak but so is street cart pad thai after the thousandth time you've had it.
Besides if we're talking about the western palate we're including all of Europe in that, with an incredible diversity of cuisines and tastes.
This isn't remotely relevant. Picking a given regional cuisine and just calling it "Thai food" when transplanted is a completely separate axis from how closely the transplanted cuisine adheres to the dishes from its original country.
> As an aside, the "more flavor and complexity than the western palate" stuff is another of those things I have a bit of a problem with. Yeah, American food in some (most) parts of the country is bland but Mexican food (for example) is American, at least if California, Texas, New Mexico are still part of the country. Add BBQ, Cajun, and other regional cuisines and American food has its own complexity. Standard diner fare is pretty bleak but so is street cart pad thai after the thousandth time you've had it.
I'm not going off of some random intuition of my own: food chemistry is literally an entire field of science that focuses (in part) on the molecules that produce flavor, and how they interact with each other. They've built taxonomies of these flavors, and Western cuisine tends to use the same flavors in the different components of a dish or meal. By contrast, cuisines like Indian food do the opposite: using multiple flavors which contrast with each other. I'm not using complexity as a value judgment, but as an objective, measurable fact. (The history behind this divergence is really interesting; I can go into it if you'd like).
I was using Western in the generally-accepted sense: of European (cultural) ancestry. Obviously American cuisine is less European than Europe, and the parts that are heavily influenced by (e.g.) Mexican cuisine are less subject to the uncontroversially lower level of flavor/complexity in European cuisines overall. The sum of these things still shifts the Western palate towards the direction I'm talking about relative to many other cuisines. Also, I'm talking about the food preferences of the people, and how that shapes cuisine. The obvious example is spicy heat: the fact that "American spicy" and "Thai spicy" is a thing indicates a recognition on the part of the proprietors that the average American palate is calibrated for a different level of heat than the Thai palate. As I said, moving every cuisine towards the American palate to suit it better has the effect of flattening them out a little. A dish from some part of Mexico tweaked to cater to the American palate will be closer to a Thai dish tweaked to cater to the American palate than the original dishes are to each other. Which brings me back to my original point: if you find places with dishes closer to their cuisines of origin than their Americanized version, you'll enjoy a greater variety of flavor, since the flattening process is somewhat mitigated.
idk, I get what you are saying, it's a bit of an empty cliche, but at the same time, I think there are interesting things people are trying to ask for, just using the wrong words
They cannot see eye-to-eye over whether burritos are "real" Mexican food. Obviously, being the good friend I am, I liked to poke and prod this.
Time marches on and maybe burritos are a regional cuisine but they are surely not a general national cuisine.
As a comparison, pizza is a USA national dish. Scrapple on the other hand is more of a Philadelphia area regional dish, even if Philadelphia is indeed inside the USA.
Use whatever words you want, I'm just sayin'...
Burritos are Sonoran food and Sonora is part of Mexico.
Many Americans might not have heard of "crawfish étouffé" and therefore assume it's not American food. A foreign tourist who has visited New Orleans could (quite authoritatively) correct them.
Btw, I'd be willing to bet that I have more contact with people from Sonora than the typical person from Puebla has.
The problem is that citing "I'm a habitual tourist" is not really a credential anyone can verify. Maybe "I'm a travel blogger as well and here is a link to my 10 year long blog and here are the posts about the many times I went to this place, so you can check the depth of my knowledge if you desire." would work.
The phrase quite authoritative suggests credentialing. I am extremely knowledgeable about a number of subjects. I even have 6 years of college. But I have a serious problem with trying to get taken seriously in part because a lot of my credentials are akin to "I'm a habitual tourist."
Maybe you really are a habitual tourist. Maybe you are more knowledgeable on the subject than the world's foremost expert with two PhDs. The problem is that "I'm a habitual tourist" simply fails as a verifiable credential as a stand alone thing without something to back up your claim of depth of accurate knowledge.
It's like saying that something that's popular must be bad, or that something that's expensive must be good. I mean, if you're a connoisseur of something, then you inevitably end up learning about the more authentic, less well-known, more exclusive versions of that thing. But saying that those are defining qualities of anything is BS, and only reveals the degree to which someone is a connoisseur because they actually appreciate something, vs. it's just part of the personal image they want to project to other people.
I liken this obsession with simulacra[0]. People looking for an original of something that never existed. “Greek” or “Mediterranean” food in the US is like this too.
Although nothing beats Tex-Mex, fight me.
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulacra_and_Simulation
On a more serious note, one of the interesting things about the IBM Watson Cookbook was looking at food not by region but by k-means clustering around a set of spice vectors. It really drove home for me the notion that 'regional' food really was more about the reliable availability of certain flavors and spices than it was around culture or people.
The closest place to great food is the TeePee, which is about as unassuming as a restaurant can get. The fancier places just crank up the spiciness to uncomfortable levels.
The best mexican?/tex-mex? I've ever had is still Chez Jose in Portland, Oregon. I'm really not sure how it's classified, other than awesome. Every trip back we eat there almost every day.
I grew up in Phoenix and love going back for the amazing Mexican food. From more established places like Los Dos Molinos to the little out of the way dives, there is no way you can convince me that Phoenix doesn't have good Mexican food. Tex-Mex I don't care about but I've spent plenty of time in Mexico too and Phoenix has great Mexican.
Mexican independence: 1810
US acquires New Mexico: 1848
This is a principle that I've often found applicable to Mexican/Mexican-American food: the more impressive the decor, the less impressive the food. The Chicago area has lots of unassuming taquerias that knock the socks off of fancy, nationally-advertised chains.
That's like complaining about tomatoes in Italian cooking.
Sometimes, though, is is just comfort. As an example, the donuts from New Orleans are easy to make at home. Ish. I have yet to have them elsewhere be the same. I'll probably call the ones I do authentic, but I confess it is just to my tastes.
i like a good breakfast taco but i'm not generally a fan of most tex-mex. it hits you over the head with lard, carbs and over-cooked meats with no balance to it at all.
of course folks eat beans and grains--my fave street taco stand makes their own tortillas and they're great!
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/wordofmouth/2011/ma...
Shortened version of processed cheese and processed beans.
The adjective processed applies to both of the nouns, though it is easy to interpret it otherwise. It's like saying "The problem is the junk food versions of these foods."
By the way, Tex-Mex is the quintessential melting pot cuisine and one of the things that ties us San Antonians together. Tex-Mex has been embraced by many different ethnicities. My great aunt and uncle were children of Syrian-Lebanese immigrants who came to the US via Mexico. They opened up a restaurant, Karam's, that was one of the most famous and popular Tex-Mex restaurants in San Antonio for decades until it closed in the early 2000's.
If you're ever in San Antonio, skip all of the crappy tourist restaurants on the Riverwalk and head straight for the original location of the Blanco Cafe [2]. In my opinion, it's the most authentic and delicious Tex-Mex joint in town.
[1] https://www.amazon.com/World-Mexican-Cooking-Margaret-Curry/...
[2] https://www.yelp.com/biz/blanco-cafe-san-antonio
* EDIT: I just remembered that I did scan the book to PDF already. I have it here on my phone but I'm on a plane at the moment. Once I'm on the ground, I'll see about uploading it to Github for everyone to check out. The scanned version is sub-optimal and I think my grandmother would have appreciated my efforts to typeset this. If you're interested in helping out, we can figure out some way to divvy up the chapters and you can help me with OCR+proofing or doing the image->text manually. Thanks for your nice comments! I hope to get something for Show HN soon.
That said, I still eat Tex Mex 2-3 times a week, but always look forward to my visits back to Houston/Austin. Unfortunately don't make it to SA too often but will give that place a try next time I do.
California would like a word with you...
To call Cal/Mex cuisine 'horrible' is patently ridiculous. If you can say that, haven't had a gordita from an L.A. roach coach, or a green corn tamale from El Cholo, or a Mission style burrito, etc etc.
Oh, and lest we not forget San Diego - a legit fish taco is sublime.
Cal mex is great. Just don’t call it Tex mex.
Agree with you on the food situation in Dallas in a general sense. But you can find loads of great tex-mex in East Dallas and Oak Cliff.
> great tex-mex in East Dallas and Oak Cliff
This is what is weird to me in Dallas. I have to go to certain parts of town to find decent tex mex. These are both 20-30 minutes away from where I live! I never had this problem in Houston or Austin. There was always some little cinder block building in/near the neighborhood run by owner pumping out great stuff.
I've tried a few of these places in East Plano or Harry Hines area that look authentic from the outside. All occasions they were actually Guatemalan or El Salvadorian which was a surprise to me.
Dallas has AMAZING tex mex. Dallas popularized tex mex to the world with el chico and el fenix. you are being insanely reductive. We have a great food scene.
And Dallas doesn't have very many Guatemalan spots (I wish we had more) so I sense you are being intentionally obtuse in your post.
Are you from Dallas? If so, I think your bias is likely too strong to sense how good this food culture is. Everyone I meet that grew up here thinks it's a great food culture just because there are a ton of restaurants and they are mostly pretty good. But, coming from Houston/Austin, I see;
1) too many chains (not a problem alone, but generally correlates to poor execution/quality) 2) restaurants rarely change their menus (good chefs change their menus!) 3) lacking depth of cuisine (we're not as international of a city as we think we are: the ethnic food options are lacking, there are some and I've seen improvements but generally people just want more burgers and more steaks) 4) we are copy cats; if you travel to other cities with good food culture it's easy to see food trends a year before they reach Dallas - I think this is related to not being chef driven, our restaurants have executive chefs that design a menu once a year, they are not driving new trends)
> doesn't have very many Guatemalan spots
I know several in Irving and along Harry Hines/Denton Drive between Love & 635
The term "authentic" tex mex is silly in the first place because it is regional (otherwise known as.. "authentic") food with replacement ingredients based on what was available here.
People that grew up here know its a good food city because... we know the spots. You'd only think Dallas has only chains if you only knew about chains.
Wouldn't that be fondue?
Assuming you're not cracking wise, that would be a reference to the American "Melting Pot," that is the mixing of cultures, as opposed to a culinary term.
Recipes we got in text form we typeset directly with almost no editing, recipes we got in image form, we included in image form. I did the layout with Scribus, and then we got copies printed and handed them out as our wedding favors.
It was exhausting work.
I don't think I've ever underestimated the scope of a project quite as badly as that one. If it weren't for a substantial volume of bourbon, and the fact that I was between jobs at the time and could work on it full-time, we'd have never gotten it done in time for the wedding.
As it was, we were way too close to deadline to get the printing and binding done inexpensively from an internet vendor. We ended up using a local printer and binder, and while it was a lot more expensive than going with an internet vendor, they really pulled the project out of the fire for us[0].
All this to say: What you're doing sounds amazing. And as you've discovered, is an astonishing amount of work. If you keep it up, I promise that the results will be worth it, but it's a long way to go to get there.
I would caution you that even if you manage to OCR the text with relatively few errors, a lot of the work in doing a cookbook is in the layout. You may have discovered this already, and if so I apologize, but getting the text into electronic form is, at most, half the battle.
Good luck, and if you get through this project, please submit it to Show HN so we can all see it!
[0] Red Sun Press deserves a shout-out for their work and their willingness to deal with a print run of <100 copies a <100 page book. If you're in the Boston area, I highly recommend them: http://www.redsunpress.com/
San Antonio also opened my mind to true Mexican, like Jalisco style food heavy on lard, onion and fried stuff like Carnitas.
I think it's just fundamentally different cuisine. I was pretty baffled when I went in to a breakfast place and they had breakfast tacos with eggs, sausage and potatoes. I literally thought that was something McDonald's invented to seem "Mexican." The Mexican breakfasts I get have smoked beef tongue and stuff like that. There isn't really that much cheese either.
Another thing, and I'm not sure it makes a huge difference, but, the Mexicans I know up here tend to be from southern Mexico. The few Mexicans I know from further north say that the food in Chicago is mostly from Southern Mexico.
Tex-mex is pretty good, but if you are expecting Mexican food it's not really the same. It needs to be appreciated on it's own merits.
It's most related to northern Mexican cuisine, but pretty distant from that of, say, the Valley of Mexico or the Yucatan or Mexico's Pacific Coast, among others. Mexico has diverse regional cuisines, often influenced by the cuisines of the different pre-colonization local cultures (but also influenced by different post-colonization immigration patterns and other factors.)
Now, look at a Chicago Italian beef. Look at Pat's, Geno's, or Ray's in Philly. Look at a New Orleans Po' Boy and an East Coast grinder.
You think there's no regional variety within a country? Are you going to tell a Philly guy his cheesesteak isn't authentic because it's different from what you're used to?
Texas, California, Baja California, the Yucatan, central Mexico, southern Mexico, the northern end of the Gulf coast in Mexico, and north central Mexico are all very different places.
You're not missing anything, that is tex-mex and I promise you it is not worse. That is just how it looks but it's awesome.
Long story short: people's low-res cell phone photos of half-eaten food taken under fluorescent lights basically indicate nothing about the food.
[1] https://www.mcdonalds.com/content/dam/usa/documents/newbigma...
[2] http://louiseroserailton.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/mcdo...
[3] http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/07/10/article-2171302-13...
https://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/0931722462/ref=tmm_p...
Bought a copy off of eBay for $10. Not sure what the above is about.
Not really; it's not any more of a melting pot than south-of-the-border Mexican cuisine is, or than California cuisine is (among many others.) It's just a melting pot with different sources and biases.
Yes, but the definite article “the” is exclusive and indicates a unique status, as opposed to the indefinite article “a” which is inclusive and admits a potentially shared status.
Tex-Mex is perhaps a quintessential melting pot cuisine, but it's not the quintessential one.
[0] except in the context of some feature where the example perfectly represents the aggregate in a way no other single example does.
By the way if you've never had brisket chili I highly recommend it.
It's the quintessence of culture to be a composite of prior cultural aspects.
It doesn't appear to be distinctly American in that it seems to be present in the other continental areas too?
For example traditional British chip shop food includes battered pineapple, and curry sauce and may just as well be cooked for you by a person born in China, say.
Tikka masala, on the other hand, was invented in the UK and has made its way back to India.
Food would be boring indeed if ingredients and techniques strictly stayed in one place.
You can find great TexMex and MexMex all around Houston. Not every place is great though. There's always places that serve cheap, bland or stale food. But the best thing about Houston is the variety. There are large populations of people from all over the world. Vietnamese, Thai, Mexican, Chinese, Indian, and Mediterranean food in particular are pretty popular. Then add the traditional american food, BBQ, seafood, and the Louisiana dishes, and it's hard to find a city with more diversity in food.
*edit- I'd like to also say that this show is great though, especially his view on the topic of authenticity and how he thinks it hurts more than it helps. :)
http://www.bbc.com/travel/story/20170808-the-truth-about-jap...
It's no different than saying froyo is killing the ice cream truck.
Having said that, there are still a ton of tex mex establishments just barely raising their prices. Some are locally chaining up (e.g. Matitos, Cristinas, etc in the Metroplex), some are not really traditional (or in the process of losing it) and already chained up (Chuys, Pappasitos, Uncle Julios, etc). The rest are operating on small margins, but they're not completely dead and some are even opening anew or revamping. They are no longer dirt cheap, but still not expensive.
This is the fate of local business in general when cities gentrify, not just Tex Mex or restaurants. You either make yourself suitability upscale and worthy of the newcomeer's dollars or get priced out because everyone else will. The city trades culture for dollars. Hole in the wall establishments don't survive that.
What's changed that's making everyone realise, in abject horror, my god, we have seen this food's ethnicity, and it is ours!
They care more now because life is generally easy(or, rather, straight-forward) so people need amusement and ways to feel special. It's unique experience they crave, even if it's the merely perception. Oddly, flavor comes second. [ which I believe is the case with the recent popularity of phở, but that's my subjective belief. ;) ]
There are upsides to it, but I think people are craving some "grounding" in a world where things/groups exist for deep reasons--where there's a continuity of identity that lasts many generations instead of the blink it lasts in most peoples' current experience.
Now Tex-Mex is moving up-scale even in Texas. It's weird, but there's so much competition at the food trucks, fast casual, etc that it's hard for the old grease ladlers to pay the rent (and rent has really gone up).
The joke, “Tex-Mex is it’s invented in the Rio Grande Valley, San Antonio makes it popular, and Austin takes all the credit.” really only sounds right in Austin where self-deprecatory hipsterism is a thing. The valley and SA don't care.
I was actually disappointed - the quality of the produce, and the sharpness of flavour in even the cheapest food in Austin eclipsed anywhere on the mid/low range in Yucatan. Queso aside (I do not like American cheese) I'd prefer Austin any day.
But there are people who will always prefer Torchy's bizarre tacos over a legit taqueria you'd find in E Riverside or wherever. And they didn't enjoy some of the best tacos I could take them to in Guadalajara. But I would never conclude that Austin's food is better from that sort of experience.
You're complaining about the "authenticity" of Austin Tex-Mex in a reply to someone who said they loved the Austin food more than "authentic" food they had in Mexico.
Although doctors are highly educated professionals, their education specifically covers medical stuff, not business stuff. Small offices routinely had piss poor knowledge of regulations like HIPAA and lousy business practices. Small shops often simply lack robust practices in important areas outside their main area if expertise. This is a serious problem in business.
Similarly, I imagine that in many cases, Grandma's restaurant was started because Grandma was an excellent cook and she decided to make money off of it in an era where her lack of business acumen was less of a hindrance. The grandkids may not cook as well as Grandma and may have no idea they need to up their game in non cooking areas as well.
So Taco Bell comes in and Taco Bell has better business practices and a robust system in place to standardize the quality of its so so food. The fact that no gourmet chefs work there won't hurt the business the way it kills Grandma's restaurant when the grandkids just can't turn out a dish like Grandma could.
I would really like to see a world that does a better job helping small shops perform well as business entities. But that isn't the world I live in currently. Currently, small shops often die because they simply lack business acumen that franchises have well sorted.
http://journaltimes.com/news/local/glad-you-asked-what-happe...
Tex-Mex might be plenty authentic, but I haven't found carnitas in the states that match my memories of Mexico. Not even BBQ pulled pork that compares either. It could be entirely a perception that is influenced by being in Mexico rather than the quality of the food itself, but it doesn't really matter, the Mexican food in Mexico seems better.
Best meal I ever had in Mexico was a hole in the wall joint in Guanajuato where a woman would bring a new dish of her choosing to all 4 tables in her restaurant room, about once every 15-20 minutes. You could walk in and sit down, and just eat what you get, for as many courses as you wanted, then on your way out, pay for however many courses you ate. It was soups and meats and vegatables, not much of the fare you'd consider "Mexican food", but one of my best memories of eating in Mexico.
I spent most of my life in Texas and went to college in Austin. The first thing out of my mouth when I get home: "let's go grab some Mexican." I can't think of anyone (friends and family living outside of Texas) that doesn't do the same -- Tex-Mex will never be killed :)
I don't think tex-mex will die any time soon though. It definitely is a comfort food that people will always crave. I haven't noticed a downturn in tex-mex style mexican in NC, but it's not competing with Brisket there either. Still, even small towns in NC usually have some sort of mexican restaurant, often staffed by immigrants from Mexico with soccer games playing on the TV, so maybe that makes it feel more authentic. Ultimately it's the portions, the approachable tastes and textures, and the price that will keep Tex-Mex restaurants chugging along. It's not a hip food, and probably wont ever be again.
(I grew up in Texas, frequently eating in dimly-lit Tex-Mex restaurants with pictures of toreadors and dying bulls, sometimes on actual felt. This was before even fajitas became popular---burritos, enchiladas, tacos, and chile rellanos were the popular fare. Walking into El Palacio made me feel like I was 6 again.)
Places like Casa Blanca, Rosie's, and Phil Sandoval's are all like Olive Garden for Mexican. They're what I think of when I imagine an "inauthentic tex-mex" restaurant.
Speaking of which, there are zero good Italian restaurants in the area, according to my spouse. There's a decent one in Chattanooga, within a mile of the 24/75 junction. But that's at least 2 hours away.
Chuck Wagon BBQ on Madison Blvd. sells Texas barbecue, if you didn't already know. Most of the other barbecue joints in the area are essentially Memphis barbecue, plus white sauce. The owner has also been referred to as the "barbecue Nazi", in reference to the "soup Nazi" Seinfeld episode, so you'd best know what you want before reaching the counter.
Is that Portofino's in Chattanooga?
Meanwhile, Chinese food is some of the most highly regarded food in the world.
Mexican food... probably gonna expect it to be cheap.
Things like Tacos al Carbon and fajita dishes take time, patience, and effort to achieve not only a reproducible but flavorful and healthy results. Huitlacoche, corn, and other fresh produce have the duality of problems for restaurants and cooks: discounts offered only at scale and the potential to spoil.
Finally, places like McDonalds have ruined food. Everything has to be delivered in 6 minutes or less, or your yelp review will shutter your business. this combination of 'fast/cheap/good' drives restaurants to eschew creative dishes and involved recipes in favor of simple durable ingredients. Sure, the fajitas came frozen, but most customers wont care if you fry them in margarine and drown them in an ocean of inexpensive cheese that has an amicable shelf life. Refried beans can either be made in house, or if you dont like the idea of hiring a chef for a fair wage, purchased from a sysco truck on 70lb batches of flavourless grey box shaped paste.
Or, skip it altogether and sell something that was cheaper than sourcing 6 vegetables like Brisket and canned beans. So long as someone else cooked it, its not on your ledger.